Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[OODA_Loop]

[

So you think initiating hostility with a gun is OK.

You build your argument on this fallacy.

He didn't initiate with a gun,

The gun was an unknown in all other interactions until he felt in fear of great bodily injury.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.

Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed

What was said ?

The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.

Looks black to me.

Maybe, the video is not very good.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?

What does that mean?

He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions, He used only after being attacked.

Could his actions be considered baiting someone to attack?

I'd say so.
But that doesnt give the guy the right to attack him.
People have disagreements everyday without resorting to violence.
Not that I agree with the shooting but the law is the law.

No one is saying he had a "right" to attack him.

Look man, the shooter initiated the aggression. Yelling a woman in a parking lot is aggression.

If you have a gun, don't initiate aggression.

Would you teach your children anything else? I grew up in the midwest where guns are common. That's the kind of thing our parents taught us when they taught us to use guns safely

I dont think the guy should have shot him in my opinion.
But all you can go by is the law.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If you came out and a guy was screaming at your wife in the parking lot, you wouldn't feel your family is physically threatened by that?

She was in the car.....my wife would of had the window up - hand on her Glock 43.

I would have slid into the passenger seat ready to draw my Glock 19 if necessary.

Back out. Leave,

 

[Kosh]

The OP asks the wrong question, self defense is always justified.

You have to prove intent. did the man with the gun intent to kill the other person.

Intent is always been hard to prove. I do not believe the man intended to kill anyone.

 

[kaz]

Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?

What does that mean?

He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions, He used only after being attacked.

Thats my take on it.
The could have walked up and asked what the problem was instead he escalated the tension.

Yes, he could have. But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."

The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low. But he kept repeating the scenario.

If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%

Thats the thing though.
The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday. If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?

That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that. You have no basis to say that.

All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing. And I think the'd be right.

That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me. He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed. That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about

 

[Kosh]

How is this political? It's a tough call even if you know more than the single paragraph posted.

Because this about the son that Obama never had.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?

What does that mean?

He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions, He used only after being attacked.

Thats my take on it.
The could have walked up and asked what the problem was instead he escalated the tension.

Yes, he could have. But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."

The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low. But he kept repeating the scenario.

If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%

Thats the thing though.
The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday. If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?

who knows what actually led up to this

could have been brewing for a long time

 

[kaz]

If you came out and a guy was screaming at your wife in the parking lot, you wouldn't feel your family is physically threatened by that?

She was in the car.....my wife would of had the window up - hand on her Glock 43.

I would have slid into the passenger seat ready to draw my Glock 19 if necessary.

Back out. Leave,

I agree, and it doesn't contradict anything I said.

The shooter repeated a scenario where he initiated the aggression and shot to kill. That's murder

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What does that mean?

He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions, He used only after being attacked.

Could his actions be considered baiting someone to attack?

I'd say so.
But that doesnt give the guy the right to attack him.
People have disagreements everyday without resorting to violence.
Not that I agree with the shooting but the law is the law.

Both men did things they didn't have the right to do IMO.

Yes, but the level was completely different.

If you came out and a guy was screaming at your wife in the parking lot, you wouldn't feel your family is physically threatened by that?

I do know my first reaction wouldnt be to attack the guy.

 

[OODA_Loop]

All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing. And I think the'd be right.

Being tactically smart and lawful can be two different things.

Zimmerman is another example. Idiot for leaving the vehicle to pursue Martin.

He was lawful though.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.

Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed

What was said ?

The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.

Looks black to me.

Maybe, the video is not very good.

He's black alright.

 

[JoeMoma]

The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.

Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed

What was said ?

The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.

That depends. If it's like "I'm a kill ya" well..


I had a guy one day, when I was out walking my dog, tell me he was gonna shoot my dog and beat my ass.

I was cornered, I said "What'd you say?" He said "I'm gonna" CLICK! STFU punk!

I beat his ass. Then his big old brother grabbed me up in a full Nelson and he hit me with a ring. As he was doing so, I stomped on his brother's toe, then grabbed his arm, rolled backwards and clacked their heads together and ran.

Their skulls were cracked. I wasn't bothering anybody, they should not have fucked with me.

I may have a scar above my eye, but I ain't got no head fractures.

I boxed his ears when he grabbed me in a bearhug, too.

Then punched him a few times in the face.

Regardless of whether what you say is true or not, anyone can be a bad ass on a message board.

 

[kaz]

In my case, that is what happened. There was still a trial.

Not necessarily.
The video itself is enough to not press charges based on Florida law.

And, a court will decide that.

The DA will look at the video and decide if it was self defense.
If he thinks it wasnt there will be a trial and the guy will walk based on stand your ground and fear for his life.

Most DA's will bring a case like this to court.
Politics being what it is, they have to cover their ass.

lol

Not in Florida - not after the Zimmerman debacle.

The prosecutor fucked up in Florida by overreaching. That was a completely different scenario. He'd probably have gotten a conviction for manslaughter. But second degree murder? There was no basis for that. And the prosecutor played the game of forcing the jury to pick between second and not guilty. It was a stupid gamble for a case where second wasn't remotely proven

 

[OODA_Loop]

The shooter repeated a scenario where he initiated the aggression and shot to kill. That's murder

The initiated aggression was not lethal aggression. Lethal didn't happen until after the hands on attack.

 

[kaz]

All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing. And I think the'd be right.

Being tactically smart and lawful can be two different things.

Zimmerman is another example. Idiot for leaving the vehicle to pursue Martin.

He was lawful though.

Staging a situation where you initiate aggression into the situation, you are armed and shoot to kill and repeating that scenario over and over is guaranteed to end up in someone being dead. I can't believe that doesn't even rattle you.

The guy wanted to kill someone. And he did. That isn't what the second is about

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What does that mean?

He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions, He used only after being attacked.

Thats my take on it.
The could have walked up and asked what the problem was instead he escalated the tension.

Yes, he could have. But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."

The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low. But he kept repeating the scenario.

If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%

Thats the thing though.
The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday. If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?

That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that. You have no basis to say that.

All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing. And I think the'd be right.

That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me. He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed. That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about

If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
That doesnt ad up.

Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.


My opinion:

Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.

I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.

The article and video of the incident are in the link below:

https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/

media link from youtube:

You’re entitled to your opinion but it’s legally irrelevant and factually wrong.

Pursuant to Florida law the shooting was lawful – whether ‘justified’ or not is also irrelevant; Florida SYG doctrine doesn’t require ‘justification,’ all that’s required is for the shooter to have a reasonable fear that his well-being or life was in jeopardy.

In another state the same use of deadly force might be unlawful.

I did not ask about Florida state law. I asked YOU if you think this is a justifiable use of force, regardless of state and federal laws. What do YOU think when you see this. Is it right or wrong?

Then you should have posted in the Religion and Ethics forum without reference to the specific incident occurring in a particular state.

Instead you posted in the Politics forum about a specific incident that occurred in Florida.

Consequently, what one ‘thinks’ or ‘believes’ is irrelevant – all that matters is the law.

You also make the mistake of confusing and conflating the law with ethical and moral beliefs, such as whether or not the shooting was ‘justified’ – where the shooting can be justified legally but not morally.

Any loss of life is sad and tragic, particularly in a meaningless, ridiculous, pointless situation such as this.

Common sense and self-preservation dictate that one shouldn’t use physical force against another concerning something as trivial as a parking spot, it will likely get you arrested – and in Florida, dead – whether one considers it ‘justified’ or ‘moral’ or not.

 

[jon_berzerk]

All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing. And I think the'd be right.

Being tactically smart and lawful can be two different things.

Zimmerman is another example. Idiot for leaving the vehicle to pursue Martin.

He was lawful though.

Staging a situation where you initiate aggression into the situation, you are armed and shoot to kill and repeating that scenario over and over is guaranteed to end up in someone being dead. I can't believe that doesn't even rattle you.

The guy wanted to kill someone. And he did. That isn't what the second is about

The guy wanted to kill someone.

got any evidence of that

does the da have any evidence of that

 

[kaz]

The shooter repeated a scenario where he initiated the aggression and shot to kill. That's murder

The initiated aggression was not lethal aggression. Lethal didn't happen until after the hands on attack.

Duh. The victim didn't initiate lethal aggression either. Only the shooter did that.

Step 1: You initiate aggression

Step 2: You get aggression back

Step 3: You shoot to kill

You keep repeating that scenario until step 2 happens and you have the dead body you wanted